Men discriminate against men. Yeah, yeah, I know we discriminate against everyone, but we discriminate against ourselves and other men so much that our lives are significantly shorter than women’s.
If I believed in God, I would say She does too!
Who are they going to report it to? The Minister For Men’s Affairs? Oh that’s right, there isn’t one of those.
And even if you went to the Workplace Ombudsman: Try proving it.
Guy: “WidgetCo said they wouldn’t hire me as a Widget Technician because they only hired women for that.”
Workplace Ombudsman: “Care to explain, WidgetCo?”
WidgetCo: “We never said that. The best candidate for the role was Jane Smith, who we felt would be the best fit for the existing team, as well as meeting the needs of the business based on her skills and experience.”
Workplace Ombudsman: “OK. Next!”
End result: Guy still doesn’t have the job because WidgetCo hired a woman instead of him.
Our society deems men to be more expendable than women.
I’m not sure it’s really accurate to fame this as gender discrimination - I see it more as a legacy of a chattel view of society. In a given context (war) the result is unfavorable to men, in other contexts the result is unfavorable to women.
Pretty much the same setup as cattle farming.
In addition to child access rights, the other major case of unequal outcomes is the incarceration rate. In the US men are incarcerated at 10 times the rate of women. The gap has been gradually closing over the last 30 years from a ratio of about 30:1 in 1960.
Please tell me you’re not serious. You may as well say that obstetricians discriminate against men.
A woman that has had a child within the past 6 months and has a nutritional problem is potentially eligible. The reason for the problem does not need to be the result of the pregnancy. A single father with nutritional issues would not qualify.
[MODERATING]
This is IMHO, not the Pit, and this is the second of three outright insults from you without me even looking very hard. Cool it off now.
Thanks,
RickJay
Moderator
Wow.
Saying someone is too lazy to read the cite, when that person has outright admitted that they didn’t read the whole damn thing while also arguing as if they had, is now a personal insult?
Whatever gets you off, i guess.
After some thought:
Are you seriously arguing that either:
A) historically women were excluded from military service and conscription because their lives were considered more valuable than men’s.
OR
B) since the feminist movement, women have continued to be excluded from combat positions and conscription because social attitudes have shifted to a place where their lives are considered more valuable than men’s.
Because for the life of me, these are the only two positions I can guess you might be taking. And if you believe one of these two things, I would like it if you would plainly state that this is the case.
Jesus, what some people - specifically me, won’t do to get the last word. But what I obviously failed to communicate, or you hoped to obfuscate, is that my story wasn’t about being the victim of spousal abuse: it was about being the victim of spousal abuse * and then being taken away in handcuffs*.
But I’ll refute one suggestion in the OP: I wasn’t looking for Mens’ Rights when I carried my daughter into the ER. I was naively expecting human rights; not just for her, but for her mom who desperately needed mental health treatment. What I regelated, however, was this message: “we as a society are baffled by mental illness. But as authority figures in that society we (mostly female) nurses and (mostly male) cops see any admission of inability as a slippage of power, so we’re reverting to the traditional narrative of the drunken brute male and acting accordingly.”
It was no stupider than if the ER physician was Theodore, Barber of York insisting on bleeding my daughter to cure her.
Human rights only happen when Authority accepts its responsibility. But the sad fact is that Authority sees that as secondary. Job One is to excert power.
We won’t be told that women have no authority at all in our society, and that that authority is never abused. That’s the sort of denial that’s used to justify and hide all human rights abuses.
I think that is a perfect example of what we are talking about and what some people still can’t see. I have one that isn’t quite as bad but similar. I wouldn’t even share it except it is over and done with. My oldest daughter went to see a (female) psychologist at school when she was 6 years old because she was having difficulty focusing in class. The psychologist somehow saw fit to ask her if her father (me) had ever touched her in an ‘uncomfortable’ way. My daughter simply answered ‘yes’ not understanding the question at all. That was all it took to send social services running. My wife and I were going through a divorce at the time and dealing with custody issues and the family court and this was a most unwelcome and completely unjustified situation to say the least.
I was lucky however. My ex stood up for me and made the psychologist ask my daughter the full explanation as to what she meant. My daughter meant that I once patted her on the back when she had a sunburn and it hurt a little. She had no idea what this lady was referring to. It took weeks to get the paperwork underdone on that one and the gears of ‘justice’ stopped. There was no lasting harm done but I was guilty until proven innocent and it almost cause irreparable damage to the things that are most important to me. I don’t think the situation would have ever come up if I was the mother.
And a pregnant or postpartum woman might potentially discuss a health issue not directly related to her pregnancy with her obstetrician. That is so unfair, huh?
Anyway, in practice the only qualifications for WIC are income and being a child under 5 or a pregnant or postpartum woman. Nobody is denied for not having nutrition problems, and no one not otherwise covered is eligible for having nutrition problems.
This is a problem, but it is hardly as automatic and complete as it is played out. And mostly, it depends on who has been the primary care giver.
I’m following a very public custody battle right now between a prominent female professor with a six figure salary, and her semi-employed new immigrant ex husband. He has full custody, in part because he was a stay at home dad, in part because she has stated that she does not intend to honor any visitation schedule. She made domestic violence and sex abuse allegations. They were followed up on and found to be unsubstantiated. This further limited her access to the child, and I think she is on supervised visits now.
She has moved mountains to try to change this, but it remains firm. So no, I don’t believe that a woman always automatically gets the kids, or can always game the system.
I just want to say that I’m really sorry that that happened. It’s just awful that such a ridiculously incompetent psychologist has the opportunity of making such horrendous allegations without having even properly asked the question. What an incredibly hurtful thing to have had looming over you. I’m just glad it has been resolved.
That’s kinda all I have left to say, the thread has been so derailed. I’m glad you continued to add an example that the OP asked for. As I said earlier in the thread, I think it is important for everyone to be aware that this stuff happens, how often, how that must feel to you, someone we know. That’s how we can move towards equality: by being aware of the problems. So thank you for sharing.
I’m a bit late to the party, but this post had me dropping my jaw in astonishment.
Women aren’t excluded from the draft because of misogynistic views about their ability (although to be totally honest I’d much rather face combat alongside someone who’d have the physical strength to drag me back to a friendly trench if I got shot).
Men are exclusively drafted because MEN ARE SEEN AS MORE EXPENDABLE.
TBH, I’m not quite sure why this isn’t perfectly clear to anyone intellectually capable of posting their thoughts on the internet. How many women were ever ordered to charge a machine-gun emplacement in WWI, exactly?
Quite frankly, I feel that the kind of women who deny this idea would have been amongst the first handing out white feathers whilst men in their tens and hundreds of thousands were being killed by machine-guns and mustard gas during the Battle of the Somme.
Yet if someone points out the hate and vitriol common in the* feminist* movement they are being unreasonable. That, we are supposed to pretend is either an aberration, or pretend that it has never existed at all.
Molesworth 2, you are quite late to the party, and your point has been hashed out a lot.
I don’t think the explanation that men are expendable particularly stands up to scrutiny. Prior to gunpowder, battle was seen in many cultures as something that men of high social standing, including the leaders, took part in.
Women generally weren’t invited because they didn’t have this standing and also (probably more significantly) were just not thought to have the strength or aggression required.
Then after gunpowder, soldiers were increasingly fodder, and less physical strength was required to fight. But by then the culture of men fighting had been pretty firmly ingrained.
To quote Spartan mothers, “come back with your shield, or on it”. Men have always been regarded as more expendable, by everyone from the government down to their own parents. And not just for warfare; men have always been expected to take the more dangerous jobs, and often those jobs were dangerous in part because it was men doing them so no one cared as much if they were hurt or died. And the men themselves often put up with it because of a stupid “take it like a man” macho subculture. One benefit for men of women taking a wider variety of jobs is that women generally insist on and get a higher level of safety for their jobs.
Right back at you, buddy. But at least one of you has got the guts to come out and say something so patently ridiculous as:
I’m surprised to be agreeing with Minjin in this thread, but no, that does not stand up to scrutiny. The poster earlier who said that this happened because everyone who wasn’t in the wealthy upper class was seen as property to some degree or another was dead on. Men were sent to die because they owed it to the upperclass declaring war. The women were not because, bear with me, they were the property of their husbands and fathers first, and not the state.
Of course considering your insinuation that your idea is the only one clear thinking people can come to, this may be too complex for you.
PS, I’m a dude, but this right here is fucking sexist.
On reflection, I can actually see why some people might read that as women’s lives being more valuable. More valuable, specifically in their worth as property.
And yet somehow, that’s a bias against men.
Well, as long as you’re being seen as property, is it somehow empowering to be seen as expendable property?